ORIGINAL ARTICLE Hazing, Bullying, and Moral Disengagement Robin M. Kowalski 1,2 & Mackenzie Foster 1 & Molly Scarborough 1 & Leah Bourque 1 & Stephen Wells 1 & Riley Graham 1 & Hailey Bednar 1 & Madeleine Franchi 1 & Sarah Nash 1 & Kelsey Crawford 1 # Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 Abstract Using the Olweus’ (1993, 2013) model of bullying as a framework, hazing and bullying were compared along the dimensions of aggression, intent to cause harm or distress, power imbalance, and repetition. The relationship of the two behaviors to moral disengagement was also examined. One hundred ninety-nine workers on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk completed a survey examining their experiences as hazing and bullying victims, perpetrators, and witnesses; they also completed Bandura et al.’s (J Pers Soc Psychol 71:364–374, 1996) moral disengagement scale. Participants were more likely to evaluate bullying than hazing as an act of aggression, as intended to cause harm or distress, and as repetitive in nature. The two behaviors did not differ in perceived power imbalance. Whereas only bullying perpetration positively correlated with moral disengagement, both hazing perpetration and victimization were positively related to moral disengagement. The high prevalence rate of both behaviors highlights the need for prevention and intervention programs. Keywords Hazing . Bullying . Victimization . Perpetration Introduction I was hazed during high school as a player on the soccer team. I wasn’t a very good player. All the best players would haze the not so talented players. They would all take turns making fun of us after practice in the locker room when we showered. They would make us stand there while they made fun of our bodies (a former male high school student in Kowalski et al. 2018). As this example attests, hazing involves humiliating and sometimes dangerous behaviors perpetrated by a senior- ranking person against a junior-ranking individual, with or without the consent of the victim (Kowalski 2020 ). Although hazing is most often associated with fraternities and sororities (Nuwer 2018), research has shown that it also occurs in the military (Kim et al. 2019; Pershing 2006), sports teams (Tofler 2016), bands (Harris 2011), student groups (Owen et al. 2008), and the workplace (Thomas and Meglich 2018; Tofler 2016). Hazing rarely occurs prior to middle school but can continue into adulthood in the work- place. Prevalence rates of hazing are variable across groups depending on how hazing is defined by those groups. One national study with 2027 NCAA athletes in the USA found that, although only 12% of the athletes reported that they had been hazed on the team, 80% responded affirmatively to experiencing specific hazing behaviors (Hoover 1999). In an- other study also in the USA of 11,482 college students across the nation, 55% (61% males; 52% females) indicated they had been hazed in various campus organizations, including aca- demic clubs and honor societies (Allan and Madden 2008). Particularly among the lay public, the terms hazing and bullying are often used interchangeably, with some suggesting that hazing be considered a type of bullying. Even among researchers, the terms may be indistinguishable from one an- other: “particular acts of bullying and hazing may be identical, bullying may be rationalized as hazing, and the differentiation of bullying and hazing requires information not always evi- dent in a particular act” (Ostvik and Rudmin 2001, p. 18). Tofler (2016, p. 624) stated that hazing activities “may be a component of bullying, cyberbullying, or workplace harass- ment and abuse.” The overlap between hazing and bullying * Robin M. Kowalski rkowals@clemson.edu 1 Clemson University, Clemson, USA 2 Department of Psychology, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA International Journal of Bullying Prevention https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-020-00070-7